Perceptions of Kinh officers and ethnic minority people
In this sub-section, I reflect on the perceptions of Kinh officers and ethnic minority people regarding their forest rights and responsibilities and how they are situated within the state discourse of deforestation. For Kinh officers, their understanding of the rights and re- sponsibilities of ethnic minority groups living near forested areas manifests itself in how they explain why Kala Tongu was included in the Community Forest and the REDD+ pilot project of the UN-REDD Vietnam Programme. Their explanations focus on two aspects. Firstly, when Kala Tongu village first joined the Community Forest scheme in 2011, the villagers volunteered to protect the Community Forest without payment for more than a year. At the time, this was considered a good model of community-based forest protection for other ethnic minorities in the region. According to one forest officer, being a good model of community-based forest protection was the most important crite- rion by which to select a REDD+ pilot project (Interview with ID24, 2015). Secondly, this community was said to meet the other criteria of a pilot site, especially in terms of ethnic composition and socio-cultural structures. Specifically, both Kala Tongu and Pre- teng 2, the two chosen villages to implement REDD+ pilot activities of the UN-REDD Vietnam Programme Phase 2 in Lam Dong Province, are mostly populated by ethnic mi- nority households who still preserve their matrilineal-based systems for land access and marriage practices. The above-mentioned criteria are not publicly announced by the UN- REDD Vietnam Programme Phase 2 on their website. However, my impression is that there is an unwritten set of criteria that varies according to different types of stakeholders. Both the REDD+ officers and the NGO practitioners seemed to have strong views on what constitutes an ideal pilot site. For REDD+, this village is ideal for their pilot project, because they can build on an established working relationship for forest protection and because the village’s composition allows them to work with ethnic minorities as desired.56
Meanwhile, local villagers are not able to articulate why their community is in- volved in REDD+. The explanations I was offered have mostly came from those who were directly involved in decision-making and management of this REDD+ pilot project. It is likely that the site selection was made by forestry and REDD+ officers, and that local villagers were then informed about this decision at a village meeting. Although there
might have been some negotiations between Kala Tongu villagers and the REDD+ deci- sion-makers and local authorities before the UN-REDD Vietnam Programme Phase 2 was implemented in the village, the whole process appears to have been more of a top-down or one-way decision.
These decisions from the top, as we might call them, tend to reflect certain socio- cultural stereotypes about ethnic minorities and their traditional livelihood. For example, one of the forest officers interviewed mentions that Kala Tongu was considered an ex- ceptional case among ethnic minority groups as they managed to protect the 500 ha of Community Forest allocated to them despite the fact that they had previously practised shifting cultivation. This reiterates the common stereotypical view held by the state (and the majority group) of ethnic minorities. In the official document of REDD+, for example, the Lam Dong Provincial REDD+ Action Plan (2014), the main drivers of deforestation are said to be ethnic minorities and their shifting cultivation practices. In particular, it is believed that ‘ethnic minority people have been carrying out deforestation and converting forestland to settlements and agricultural land to support their traditionally very large families’ (Part 1, 1.1.4). Both the local forest officer and the official document of REDD+ in Lam Dong share the same concern and perhaps socio-cultural stereotype about ethnic minorities as the main drivers of deforestation in the Vietnamese upland. In this case, the ethnic minorities (specifically K’ho people in Kala Tongu village) are being objectified by the state and NGOs as the ‘problematic’ groups in terms of environmental conserva- tion. Therefore, from the perspective of the state, ethnic minorities are prioritised as a target for intervention projects, including REDD+.
However, there may be other agendas underlying the state discourse of ethnic mi- nority people as the main drivers of deforestation. Although implicit, this discourse im- plies that ethnic minorities are expected to be responsible for the environmental well- being of the country and that they should put more effort into conserving the forest for carbon sequestration. For example, a draft of REDD+ Strategy and REDD+ Readiness published on the official website of REDD in Vietnam recognised the role of ethnic minorities in sustainable forest management and effective monitoring, but noted that ‘this is probably more valid for minorities with a long history of association with particular forests than for migrant ethnic communities such as those migrating from the depleted forest regions of the north to the Central Highlands’.57 As such, it is clear that local ethnic
57 Refer to Vietnam REDD Office, REDD+ Strategy and REDD+ Readiness, Sub-section on Role of Eth-
minority groups, not all forest dwellers, are the main targets for REDD+ pilot projects. The other groups, as noted on the REDD+ website, including ethnic minorities who mi- grated from the uplands in North-western or Central Vietnam and the majority group (hereafter Kinh people) who migrated from the lowland.
The Kinh people are is rarely mentioned in official documents relating to REDD+ as a potential target group or as a stakeholder in forest protection and development schemes and REDD+. This is the case in Kala Tongu village where the proportion of Kinh households in the village is low and their main livelihood is not agriculture or for- estry activities. The competition for resources in Kala Tongu village between ethnic mi- norities and Kinh people, therefore, is expected to be less severe than in nearby villages where Kinh people arrived earlier and managed to occupy relatively large areas of land for coffee plantations. Moreover, according to my empirical data, Kinh people in Kala Tongu are not farmers or forest labourers; they rely mostly on small businesses to gener- ate income, and some of them provide ethnic minority households with small loans. Ac- cording to one interview with a Kinh household, those small loans are often ‘quick cash’ for everyday consumption rather than big loans for agricultural investment. This, mean- while, is not mentioned by ethnic minority households, partly because they might feel embarrassed talking about borrowing money from their Kinh neighbours, and partly be- cause the Kinh households in Kala Tongu village do not lend large amounts of money. When Kala Tongu villagers need to borrow large sums of money, they normally travel to other villages and borrow from Kinh people there, as they have better-established busi- nesses which offer bigger loans. Therefore, in this sub-section, when I refer to the ethnic minority and Kinh relationship, I am not only referring to ethnic minority and Kinh people in Kala Tongu, but also to relations between ethnic minorities in Kala Tongu village and Kinh people in other villages. I also differentiate between the relationships or alliances between ordinary ethnic villagers and Kinh people, and elite ethnic villagers58 and Kinh
people, as the nature of these alliances might vary based on the social and politico-eco- nomic status of those involved.
Between the ethnic minority and Kinh people inside and outside Kala Tongu vil- lage, my research findings suggest that Kinh people also contribute to shaping local ac- cess to resources. They help the local population connect with marketisation, provide them with capital to invest in large-scale commercial cash crops, and stimulate an official and unofficial process of land transfer from ethnic minority households to elite ethnic
minority and Kinh people. This is closely linked to a shift of agricultural economy from single-crop rice farming to coffee plantation in Kala Tongu village. During my conversa- tions with local ethnic minority villagers, I often heard them mention how they gave up hill rice cultivation and converted the terraces into coffee plantations following the ex- ample of Kinh migrants. I did not manage to trace the historical context of coffee planta- tion in Di Linh district and Kala Tongu village, but according to some senior men in Kala Tongu and neighbouring villages, they only started growing coffee after the Reunification of 1975. From the local perspective, the migrant Kinh people played a crucial role in altering the landscape and traditional methods of land use and management, when coffee gradually replaced hill rice as the main crops (together with wet rice). The extension of the coffee economy in the region nowadays provides the main income and creates wage labour opportunities for local ethnic minority people, especially during coffee harvest. With the penetration of Kinh people into Kala Tongu village, some local ethnic minority households, including one of my host families, also see opportunities for selling their land. I was told by my landlady that they managed to accrue the necessary capital to build a new house from selling land to a Kinh merchant. The land was sought-after and thus well-priced at that time because it was located right next to the newly-established road connecting the village to Di Linh Township and neighbouring districts. This process of land transfers, however, is not encouraged by the state and policy-makers and the state tries to prevent ethnic minority people from selling land so they will not become landless and destitute. When I was in the village, there was a meeting at which the Kinh officer from Bao Thuan Commune People’s Committee spoke about land transactions and cases where it was not recommended for local ethnic minority people to sell their land. These policy dissemination sessions with officers from the Bao Thuan People’s Committee, however, are normally conducted by Kinh officers in Vietnamese. According to a woman who attended these sessions, she did not fully understand the information provided in Vietnamese. Kinh officers may think that the only reason why local villagers sell their land is because they are ignorant of the state policies on land. In fact, local villagers may sell their land if they think it is necessary; and in case of being questioned by the Kinh officers, they might simply explain that they are not aware of the current policies.
The economic role of Kinh people is seen differently by local elites. This, how- ever, is not specific to Kinh people in Kala Tongu village alone. According to those elite ethnic minorities, Kinh people in general tend to take advantage of local ethnic minorities and even cheat them in order to get wealthy. Moreover, as Kinh people often run small businesses based on buying and selling agricultural products for profit and lending money
with high interest rates, Kinh people in Kala Tongu village are seen by the local elite minority as traders rather than farmers. As such, these Kinh people are perceived not to have a connection with the land, nor to work hard in the field like local K’ho people, and therefore, in the view of elite ethnic minorities, they should not be entitled to benefit from state-funded forestry schemes. The historical relationship between ethnic minority and Kinh people is reflected in local perceptions of who should be the main target of forestry projects. This also resonates well with the state and international donors’ perception of the importance of ethnic minority participation in the existing projects. The state, the in- ternational donors and the local elite share the same idea that only ethnic minority house- holds, and not Kinh households, are to be included in these projects because the latter do not rely on the forest (even though this is not always the case).
The emphasis on local ethnic minority participation rather than Kinh participation is not only promoted by the state but also by NGO practitioners. According to a repre- sentative of one NGO working on ethnic minority development:
Kinh people only come there [upland and forested areas] to do business and earn money, why should we include them in the forest projects? [...] Those people, they do not live on the forest, why do we have to include them, but they have to obey the [customary] laws […] They do not care if they are excluded [from the forest projects], they are not dependent on the forest, so they won’t worry about it, espe- cially those Kinh households that migrated from the north, they come here to go business, to lend money with cut-throat interest, they do not bother about the local villagers at all. (Interview with NGO3, 2016)
Her comment sheds light on how the debates on ‘participation’ in global and national environmental projects can potentially perpetuate the dichotomy between the ethnic mi- norities and the majority both geographically and ecologically: this is the case, despite the fact that some Kinh households, following both state-funded and free migration, have been settled in the Central Highlands for several decades. These Kinh households, through the process of agricultural expansion, also contribute to deforestation and there- fore should be the target of forestry and environmental projects as REDD+. In fact, since Kinh people are often seen as having more capital to invest in land, and in labour to work the land, as well as good connections with local authorities, it is likely that they engage in a more intense process of land conversion and deforestation than local ethnic minority people. Although there are no official statistics about the main actors of deforestation by ethnicity, the case of Kala Tongu village shows that Kinh migrant households are nor- mally excluded from PFES and REDD+. In my interviews with two Kinh households in
Kala Tongu village, they did not mention being invited to village meetings about the forestry projects. The Kinh man, however, mentioned that he wanted to participate in the forestry projects because he saw them as a way to earn money. Seemingly, the Kinh households in Kala Tongu village might also be interest in joining, but they are already excluded from these projects. This is also the case in other REDD+ pilot sites of UN- REDD Vietnam Programme Phase 2. For example, in a field trip to R’teng 2 village (Lam Ha district, Lam Dong Province), I learnt that Kinh migrant households there, despite being settled for more than forty years, have not yet been included in the forest protection projects.
It is likely that the effort of UN-REDD Vietnam Programme Phase 2 to shift at- tention to ‘ethnic minorities’ as the main drivers of deforestation and agents of change in tackling the question of climate change might run the risk of exaggerating the tension between the two communities in its two pilot sites in Lam Dong Province. From the per- spective of Kinh people, it might evoke jealousy and rumours among their households about being excluded from state-funded projects and reinforce the social stereotypes of Kinh people. For example, a Kinh man shared with me that in Kala Tongu, the ethnic minority households have access to a better benefits package as they are paid to patrol the forest and receive regular income (every three months), while Kinh people like him have to work hard to earn money. He did not however seem to be aware of the actual work that the ethnic minority households have to do as they participate in the forestry projects, but he insisted that his neighbouring ethnic minority households have an easy life since they can rely on these projects for income. Meanwhile, he also noted that despite their partic- ipation in various forestry projects, these ethnic minority households are still poor and cannot handle their household finances, since he said they often come to him to borrow money (with interest). This reflects the social stigma towards ethnic minorities as lazy and dependent on state transfer and benefits packages, a view which is common among Kinh people in Kala Tongu and in Di Linh district generally.
Indebtedness among ethnic minority households
For ethnic minority households, this supposedly ‘positive discrimination’ might not di- rectly improve their livelihood. In my case study, the ethnic minority households involved in various forestry projects are not necessarily better off than those who are not. For ex- ample, in a typical ethnic minority household involved in the Community Forest, forest leasing contract schemes with the Bao Thuan Forest Company, and REDD+ pilot activi- ties of UN-REDD Vietnam Programme Phase 2, the main (male) labourers normally have
to divide their time and energy to attend to both the required activities of the projects and their farming work. According to my field observations, on a quarterly basis, the Com- munity Forest scheme requires one or two days of work (for patrolling) and one day of work for emergency cases (such as a forest fire). The forest leasing contract scheme with the Bao Thuan Forest Company requires three to seven days of work, and the REDD+ pilot project requires one day of work for attending meetings and other activities such as receiving, planting and watering tree seedlings. On top of this additional work, the men (with support from their wives) have to work on their wet rice fields and coffee planta- tions. None of the ethnic minority households are able to tell me how much they are paid per day based on their payments from these forestry schemes and their work contribution, and that does not seem to be of concern to them. However, according to one forest officer, when a forestry company or provincial forestry department hires local villagers to work for the forestry schemes, they calculate roughly that each household receives 150,000- 200,000 VND ($7.50-10) per day, which is the average daily wage for an agricultural labourer (Interview with ID24, 2015). In fact, from my interviews with local villagers, this pay rate only applies to patrolling work (not other extra work), and therefore, the labourers often end up working more than they are paid. Moreover, since their agricultural income only comes twice a year with wet rice and once a year with coffee, ethnic minority households tend to look at the totality of their income rather than the daily wage. This is why they do not perceive that they are being under-paid both in their forestry schemes and their farming work. Nevertheless, I came across cases where both men and women commented that since their household participates in various forestry schemes, the men